On Monday the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Citizens United Case. When I look at the Supreme Court's words and thoughts in the Citizens United Case, I think of other statements from the past, made by prominent figures, regarding controversial issues.
- "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Charles H. Duell (United States Patent and Trademark Office), 1899;
- "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." Lord Kelvin (Royal Society of London), 1895; "Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." Marshal Ferdinand Foch, 1911;
- "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas J. Watson (President of IBM), 1943;
"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption;" ... "the appearance of influence or access [coming from unlimited corporate spending] will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this country."
-- Justice
Anthony Kennedy in the United States Supreme Court (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), 2010
The first paragraph of Citizens United is just arrogant, self-interested foolishness. The second is that plus something far more dangerous.
The nine Supreme Court Justices are all wordsmiths. The five Court conservative majority did not specifically say that great amounts of money do not influence elections, and they did not specifically say that great amounts of monies cannot buy elections, and they did not specifically say that money cannot buy government officials.
To say that, in those words, would be as foolish as those quoted from history in the beginning of this piece.
So it was said by the Justices in other ways.
To plainly say what they really meant would make it clear to all of us exactly what was going to happen to this country. This could, or might, lead to a very angry if not violent reaction.
Buried in 81 pages of legal citations in Citizens United we see avoidance. We see what appears to be a deliberate attempt to confuse the fact that the Court does not say so much foolish as dangerous words.
To put clearly what the Court unclearly states, that this democracy cannot stop itself from becoming a plutocracy, a country run by and for the benefit of the wealthy, is very troublesome.
The "original intent" Justices, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, joining with Justices Roberts and Kennedy in the Citizens United majority, cannot find the words in the Constitution that say a plutocracy is what the Founders wanted. It's not so, and never has been, and so they find a different way to say that it's legal.
The 81 page decision of the Citizens United majority is so carefully articulated that it obscures who the five Justices are, what they really want, and their acceptance, perhaps desire, for a country that bears very little resemblance to the democracy we thought we had.
Martin Garbus, a First Amendment lawyer who has taught at Columbia University, is the author of a number of books on the First Amendment and the Supreme Court.
-- Justice Anthony Kennedy in the United States Supreme Court (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), 2010" is one of the basest and most foul of lies ever perpetuated on the American public.
It is plain simple language meant to do nothing but deceive and in it's deception destroy any vestiage of democracy. The RobertsCourt did what the British(War of Independence) NazisJapanese)WWII, the Soviets( ColdWar) or any number of enemies failed to do in the past.
The utter and complete destruction of a society predicated on the notion that all men are created free and equal and pushed our society over the precipice towards CorporateFacism.
CitizensUnited cannot be permitted to stand and the RobertsGang in this specific instance must be held accountable. The SupremeCourt regardless of past decisions in our history has always been held to a higher standard. This is no longer true.
Our government, state and federal, relies on the "good faith" of it's citizenry, that "faith" was destroyed by the RobertsGang.
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy should be held accountable by this govewrnment and the people and scrutinized by the media and courts across the land, otherwise America is lost.
But of course, he makes no mention of Native Americans the the evils effects they suffered at the hands of European hordes besieging their lands.
More scandalous Scaliaisms. The man is such a bloated ego and shriveled intellect that historians are really go to have some fun with this. I only hope they don't wait until he's dead to get started. It would do the man good to see how his moral and intellectual degeneracy will bring shame upon the heads of his descedants. I off this new colloquialismas the ultimate insult: "Your name is Scalia!"
The mind reels.
And this is just what will happen if Romney is elected. Enter the Man on a White Horse.
Obama 2012!
What is really needed is a change to public financing of elections, eliminating all outside influence and opening the field to more candidates. But that too is unlikely. There are a variety of reasons for why we are where we are (detailed in the book America Adrift) but our yearning for simple answers will likely keep us from addressing those reason as we slide deeper and deeper into plutocracy.
Many already have, including myself. Utterly and completely.
Truly free societies abdicate the free speech rights of interest groups to the government which is the regulator of speech to ensure an efficient, fair society
The Founding Fathers did not intend for the corporations to shape the government!
Got it?
The founding fathers did not intend for the government to control political speech or ban books.
When citizens united was argued before the supreme court the FEC (who was regulating the speech of a conservative interest group, which was incorporated) argued they could ban books if published to close to an election. Do you really support the government banning books. Really?
This group that the FEC was silencing was not some big corporation, just some people who did not like Hillary Clinton and had the audacity to air a "documentary" about her too close to an election. Oh my, something negative said about a politician to close to an election. Are you for protecting public officials from political speech, Really?
"During the original oral argument, then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union"
Got it bud?
Government was regulating polical speech and that is exactly what the first amendment protect.
Unless you are a hippie and think the most important thing about the first amendment is protecting your adolescent urge to swear in public.
In other words, watch what happens, not what they say. The arguments are but afterthoughts to the furtherance of the agenda.
Given the staggeringly high incumbency rates cemented in our electoral process by campaign finance reform over the past four decades, where's the smoking gun?
*snicker*
They think money is freedom, whereas the truth is the opposite, money is control!
I don't think libertarians think money is freedom. I think libertarians mistakenly believe they are islands to themselves.
"During the original oral argument, then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued .... the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union"
The left blog sites and HuffPost forgets to mention book banning is supported by these government controls of speech.